Ms N Daoud (maiden name Boukhannouche) v Bvlgari (UK) Ltd — 2020

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the decision-makers were Mr Pujia, Mr Brisotto and Ms Santini, with Mr Pujia having the final say, and that the reason for dismissal was their belief that Ms Daoud was not following her manager's instructions and was not meeting the respondent's behavioural expectations. The respondent argued that the real reason was a serious and irreparable breakdown in the working relationship, but the tribunal held that the dismissal reason was conduct rather than some other substantial reason.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 because the respondent gave no proper pre-dismissal process: the claimant was not told the allegations or evidence in advance, there was no written invitation or right to be accompanied, no warning, and no real chance to comment or improve. The appeal did not cure those defects, because Ms D'Arco's review was deferential and did not supply a fair first-stage process. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore upheld, with remedy left to a later hearing listed for 15 February 2021.

On the harassment claim, the tribunal accepted that Mr Tariq made some critical comments in early July 2018 about the claimant's communication style, body language, use of the word sacked, sending emails, the safe key and stock-take tasks, but it rejected the exact wording alleged in several instances, including the reference to English in the form pleaded and the phrase about an attacking position. It found that the conduct was not related to race, that it was management criticism rather than conduct of the kind prohibited by s.26 Equality Act 2010, and that all harassment complaints failed.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the 4 August 2017 email was a protected act because it alleged maternity discrimination, that the 7 August 2018 grievance was also a protected act because it implied a race-related complaint through the reference to picking on my English, and that the 29 December 2017 grievance was admitted to be protected. However, the tribunal dismissed all victimisation complaints: the 2017 promotion and Click & Collect commission complaints were out of time or not causally linked, the 2018 promotion decision was taken because another candidate was stronger, the grievance was investigated, and the dismissal was not because of the protected acts. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed because the contract said overtime was not paid and only time off in lieu was available with prior authorisation, and no remedy was determined at this liability hearing.